Dying by natural causes mid battle (SBA debate)

[C2_of_Omegon]

I also agree. There are characters who can literally fight for months or years without needing any rest or food/drink. Others are extremely long lived and would have no problem playing the long game.

Outlasting and/or outplaying your opponent is a valid wincon. Though it still would be subject to case-by-case analysis like anything else in Vs Battles.

 

[The_Calaca]

We try to make accurate profiles, and adhere to the profiles in Vs Debates. I think it seems silly to ignore a character's vulnerability in terms of "Who Would Win" situations just because it takes a long time to exploit or because it isn't impressive as a straight-up fight.

This is a pretty important argument.

@Flashlight

Reducing the characters that can 'outlive' their opponents to gods is wrong. Characters with longer than average lifespans are plenty in fiction. The question is if they are willing to take that much time to defeat their opponents, but by all means either via Longevity or Type 1 Immortality this should be counted as a wincon.

One of them is going to eventually win. There's no rule saying that the fights can last a certain timeframe and it'd be unnecessary. There is for the amount of time a character can remain out of combat, either because he was killed, incapped or BFRd, but a fight can last as much time as the characters want/need to.

 

[YungManzi]

Well, I know where this came from (This thread), and I absolutely do not agree with it. You winning via your opponent killing themselves is one thing, but waiting until your opponent dies of old age is not and should not be a victory condition. For several reasons.

1) It isn't guaranteed that either combatant would continue to fight for that long (Unless of course both or 1 of them has been shown to do so). Just because you can live a long time, or even forever, doesn't mean you can or would fight forever. And when a fight drags on for a certain amount of time, it becomes less and less predictable. The environment changes constantly, storms come in and natural disasters happen, do we expect them to continue fighting under any and all circumstances for decades? Even in the snow in New York where it reaches far below freezing temperatures?

2) Without giving a reasonable time frame for victory to be achieved it becomes a slippery slope which leads to literally every inconclusive scenario where both characters can't put each other down now being changed to a victory for whoever lives longest. Characters like Accelerator would now lose two of his inconclusive matches.

This is not to mention characters who would now get wins just by being younger than their opponent. It gets quite ridiculous when characters who are 50+ would lose just by virtue of being older.

 

[Crzer07]

Seems to make sense that type 1 immortality and type 2 self-sustenance is battle applicable after all. Afaik no time limit has been stated in the SBA, and we been treating it as though there is an unspoken, unwritten rule or assumption about it.

 

[Agnaa]

I agree wholeheartedly.

This is more related to other points you brought up rather than the proposed rule change, but I had some people arguing inconclusive for SCP-2747 matches (it can start off as the weakest character AP-wise on the site but over years can climb to Low 2-C/1-B) because "can't harm for 24 hours is incap, and they both can't harm each other for 24 hours, so incon" which I thought was dumb. All this sort of stuff should be rectified, and I think this rule change can do it.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Things changing, your second point, are not a reason to not apply this, Yung. Calling it a slippery slope without reasoning doesn't work.

They are, and will, keep fighting to the death and keep in a fighting mentality by SBA. Maybe one would run away, but that would just be self-bfring. Everything about matches is also guesswork, so I feel that saying that we'd start to need to guess a lot isn't much of an argument against it. Unless you believe all game characters with no set mentality should not have matches now, since that tends to have as much guesswork.


A character lacking the mental fortitude to keep fighting for prolonged times would be their problem, too.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I'm fine with the suggested change.

 

[Andytrenom]

Thing is, I'm pretty sure this idea was already followed before where outlasting was a valid wincon, so I'm not sure why it has now started to be rejected as a reasoning

 

[Planck69]

I'm cool with the change.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Thing is, I'm pretty sure this idea was already followed before where outlasting was a valid wincon, so I'm not sure why it has now started to be rejected as a reasoning

I mean, the idea of just staring at your opponent until they die does seem rather... lackluster, as far as fights go.

 

[Crabwhale]

I agree with this.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Seems reasonable, staving or aging still counts as death.

 

[YungManzi]

I gave reasoning Ricsi.

New York isn't even the kind of place where you can even stay outside for a prolonged period of time without some kind of resistance to cold. Are we going to start having wins via people dying in the cold because they wanted to continue fighting (Per SBA) and decided not to find shelter from the cold in the midst of their battle?

Well, I guess the current SBA already support such a change. And I'm not gonna spend too much time arguing here while everyone else is agreeing with the change, so I'll back off. But this isn't something I support, at all.

 

[DMB_1]

I agree with the OP.

Also, you guys are forgetting that Self-Substainance can also bring you to victory: if the battle takes place on a deserted planet, one could potentially die of thirst and starvation in a matter of days, especially because stamina is a thing.

Finally, "outliving" will potentially be a win condition.

 

[N_Kardashev]

This is not to mention characters who would now get wins just by being younger than their opponent. It gets quite ridiculous when characters who are 50+ would lose just by virtue of being older.

Yeah, just see what's left of your telomeres by the time of 50+, compare to someone who's in their prime.

 

[RatherClueless]

Well, for me this is a yes and no.

Yes, if they have the stamina to actually fight untill someone dies of old age.

No if they dont. Why? Simple. If they dont have the stamina or the ability to keep fighting it would be a case of "They had 1000 (finished) inconclusive fights, but on the 1001st day, one of them died a natural death". I think the fact that they finished a bunch of times inconclusive and were pretty much forced to stop and start again at a different point > lol hart attack gg.

Thechnically all of those other fights arent even the one we made them fight, since that one would have finished as "inconclusive".

 

[Elizhaa]

The proposal is fine, to me.

Yeah, Immortality Type 1 and self-Susbstance (2, even 3) would be useful and combat applicable. If a characters die overall from old age in a fight or loss of from extreme fatigue, dehydration, or starvation then the match should be a loss for them not inconclusive.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like this has mostly been accepted, so does anybody have a suggestion for how to properly word the new regulation text?

 

[Flashlight237]

1) It isn't guaranteed that either combatant would continue to fight for that long (Unless of course both or 1 of them has been shown to do so). Just because you can live a long time, or even forever, doesn't mean you can or would fight forever. And when a fight drags on for a certain amount of time, it becomes less and less predictable. The environment changes constantly, storms come in and natural disasters happen, do we expect them to continue fighting under any and all circumstances for decades? Even in the snow in New York where it reaches far below freezing temperatures?

You said it much better than I can. Not to mention most 1v1 fights I've seen, both fictional and real, don't last any more than a day (in fact, the most famous of fictional fights; such as Simba vs Scar, Super Saiyan Goku vs Frieza, and Mario vs Bowser; lasted mere minutes.). I don't see any reason to extend a fight longer than a day unless absolutely necessary because by then, most people fictional or not would question what they're doing in the first place and f**k off.

 

[Andytrenom]

The "becoming less and less predictible" means nothing in case of what's actually being argued, outliving just being a valid wincon, not making it so that every single time there is battle that won't resolve soon, the character with the longer lifespan will win

When things become impossible to determine, that will still count as incon, but when there's reason to believe a character won't be put down or stop fighting before the opponent's time runs out, we can count those as victory

 

[Ayewale]

I agree with the OP.
Also, you guys are forgetting that Self-Substainance can also bring you to victory: if the battle takes place on a deserted planet, one could potentially die of thirst and starvation in a matter of days, especially because stamina is a thing.

Finally, "outliving" will potentially be a win condition.

99.99% of battles won't take place in any area like that whatsoever.


Anyways, as for this change it seems...fine, I suppose? I'm guessing the idea is to put an end to inconclusive threads by saying 'X character gets tired before Y does' as a way to make it a definitive fight. My potential only tidbit is that most characters-if in an IC state-wouldn't fight for days on end. The meme of 'characters end the fight by drinking tea together' becomes a pretty real reality in those situations.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Simple: because it's dumb and not how fight works.


No offense of course.

 

[Antvasima]

I have to unsubscribe to this thread due to time constraints. You can send me a message later if you need my help.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It seems like this has mostly been accepted, so does anybody have a suggestion for how to properly word the new regulation text?

I think what I suggested in the op, changing "killing the opponent" to "Death of the opponent" should do it.

I also think this has been mostly accepted now, so I will make the edit. I will leave this open, though.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

We really need to stop taking things to pretty vague extremes just to justify not doing stuff. Being capable of outlasting your opponent doesn't suddenly mean a bunch of wins or losses will be determined by that, nor that many matches will account for this in some way.

Regardless, winning is winning. Being able to ignore basic needs or having unreal stamina is an advantage, and the best I could see to oppose this as an advantage for winning by outlasting is that it wouldn't be a very glamorous fight. I really don't think we ever cared about the direction the fight takes and shouldn't use that to define what constitutes a win.

 

[ChocomilkAlex]

I disagree with this. Battle's aren't meant to last for million of years and it seems like this change is just a way to prevent inconclusives from ever happening.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I agree with Choco. Granted I think inconclusive is overused and comes to a point where it's more of a compromise than anything else, and that if something seems even then there's likely something that tips the balance in the fine details. But I digress.

 

[Elizhaa]

I disagree with this. Battle's aren't meant to last for million of years and it seems like this change is just a way to prevent inconclusives from ever happening.

Sorry, it is accepted, if you think it is wrong then you can make a CRT on it. Also, some battles can actually last that long.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

This is literally the CRT for it, Elizhaa...

 

[ChocomilkAlex]

I disagree with this. Battle's aren't meant to last for million of years and it seems like this change is just a way to prevent inconclusives from ever happening.

Sorry, it is accepted, if you think it is wrong then you can make a CRT on it. Also, some battles can actually last that long.

It's ok. I doubt it's going to make or break anything considering inconclusives are pretty rare tbh. If this means the end of Thunder McQueen then I'm all for this lmao.

 

[Elizhaa]

This is literally the CRT for it, Elizhaa...

Oh, my bad, I thought it was the match thread and that DontTalkDT close the CRT.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

@Choco

It wouldn't really mean the end of Thunder though, as this would only be applicable to his case if the person in question didn't die from whatever McQueen did.

I just personally agree that if one of the two people die, and it was because the opponent could outlast him because that's one of his traits, we just decide to leave it inconclusive with the dude that is alive being, well, alive. And by all means having won.

More like, many inconclusives won't even get into this territory. If we can't say for sure one dude dies before the other by simply time, they wouldn't earn any sort of win like this.

 

[ChocomilkAlex]

Thunder McQueen was a bad example and it seems like the only way to prevent his inconclusives with this new SBA rule is to have prior knowledge of Highway to Hell.

 

[Elizhaa]

I think a good example is character A with Immortality Type 1 and all Self-Sustenance (Type 1, 2, 3) fighting character B who equal in abilities, tiers but have standard human weakness. Both characters are around equal so it hard to determine the fight in the short term but in a few days, due to fighting fatigue, dehydration, hunger, character B may die on their own. I thint it takes around 3 days to die of dehydratio,for insights. This is the realistic interpretation.

 

[ChocomilkAlex]

Gotcha, I'm cautiosly optimistic about this.

 

[Elizhaa]

Gotcha, I'm cautiosly optimistic about this.

No problem.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Dehydration takes that long normally, when you are not exactly exerting much. If you somehow kept pushing yourself more and more, the sweating would probably cut that down to a day at most (not that someone should be able to fight for a day without fiction saying they can).

 

[AshenCrow777]

I agree with this what's the point to have stamina, type 1 immortality and self sustenance in this wiki if they can't be applied in combat, all of these are extremely important factors can be insanely valuable in combat. ALso people who says that combat won't last longer than several minutes or heck even ours is kind of stupid (no offense) but we have characters like Thor that can literally fight an army of Frost Giants for months non stop with out the need of taking breaks and eat something.

imagine 2 characters almost equal in all stats and genius level intellect, Character A having immortality will make sure to outlast character B that doesn't have it.

Why?

Because as far as I am concerned that counts as a win because character A resorted to an other tactic and used one of his own advantage to get a win, imagine having info analysis and you know that your opponent can't outlive you, of course you are going to use this as an advantage.

Tiamat (faye/Grand Order) can never die as long as there is still one thing alive in the universe,of course she is going to outlast her opponents unless you have insane stamina, self sustenance or some former of immortality it dosent matter if you keep fighting her for days and you are her equal in any shape or form you will litteraly expire before she even does.

And that's a clear victory.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Have to think on this one. Following, nontheless.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I can agree, with this, but it feels a bit silly and "flawed" (by flawed i mean that it feels like people can abuse this for a win). This feels too abusable. Example if we have non immortal version of SCP-1440, then it could literally go like "Old man seals 10-B immortal human, but then the human outlasts him cus old man just gets a heart attack".

Or stuff like "X character freezes Y in a block of ice, but Y outlasts and when X dies the ice just dissipates giving Y the win" even though character X completely outclassed him.

It also feels a bit silly to be like "Character X is extremely cocky so he just toys with his opponent, so he kicks Y around but spontaneously dies of natural causes, giving Y the win".

Cus at this point, we're not judging based on "The stronger/better character will win", but can be abused to go like "the younger character will win".

Worst case scenario, something like "X uses mind hax to turn Y into a slave, but Y outlasts and becomes free from the mind hax, so he wins".